Im not sure what it really tells you apart from the fact that a model of truth that allows no exception, change or amendment isnt actually very useful. Lurid
It doesn't really tell you anything at all- it's a philosophical party trick to make saying P=notP meaningful. If you can construct a better example that's fine, the time travel one is just the one my professor used. You said "if you are going to flag up a contradiction" but that isn't what's happening, the contradiction is not real but only apparent, as you say. It's like making more toast than your breakfast colleagues just so you can say "I boast the most toast" or something, a contrived situation to allow a particular statement.
To me it's like arcane math, but philosophy, p=notp being the equivalent of the square root of minus one. You have to renormalise it to get any real-world result, but it can be handy.
To attempt to cut away the complexities of that meaning and bring out a pure meaning, which could then be expressed with all the dryness of chalk on a board, with a professor lecturing his students — is this not a vain attempt?
SMS, you do realise that I heard this example from my philosophy professor while I was a student, standing at a blackboard? I'm not sure what you're getting at to be honest, it sounds more like a rant about arrogant academics than philosophy particularly.
And that’s one of the major pitfalls of the modern philosopher. His title can get to his head. He might begin to think that he has discovered and needs to relay his discovery to an unsuspecting and underdeveloped civilization.
What on earth are you talking about?
Good Intentions- I see what you're saying, but set D is defined by only one quality, the quality that is being denied.
The identifier that determines whether or not someone is in set D is demonic possession, so to deny that seems to be nonsense- until it's explained that the descriptor 'possession' is more accurately something else, 'mental illness'. (If that's the case of course, if it turns out demons are real then they would be right and the time traveller wrong)
So, you say set D, those-people-over-there-acting-strangely , demonically-possessed-people, mentally-ill-folk or whatever. That means there is no contradiction, you separate the set from the descriptor, sorted. You're right.
But, if you *choose* to use the descriptor 'possessed-people' rather than 'set D' or just pointing at the people, you *can* meaningfully say 'all X are not-X'. That's the whole point of it all, not to force a paradox or anything, just to allow the possibility of the statement.
What SMS is (I THINK) talking about is the map/territory or language/reality relation better expressed by Magritte;
Ceci n'est pas une line segment. |
